Monday, May 7, 2012

Mao Zedong has
been dead for
a long time. His credentials include many important achievements: founding member of the Chinese
Communist Party; revolutionary leader;
hero of the Chinese civil war; first
leader of the
People's Republic of China; architect
of China's economic policies during its
first quarter century; and
prolific author.

Among Mao's writings are three of special importance: “On Practice,”“On Contradiction,”
and “Combat Liberalism.”He wrote them between
July and September 1937 when he and
his comrades were holed up in the caves in
Yenan. Footnotes in these essays cite the works
of Vladimir I. Lenin
and Friedrich Engels on the
law of contradiction, the most
basic law of dialectical
materialism (fashioned by Engels
and Karl Marx, the latter being the author of The Communist Manifesto).

The core principle
of dialectical materialism is that contradictory,
mutually exclusive, opposite tendencies exist
in all phenomena and processes of nature, including the
mind and society. Mao built his entire
framework for political education and action on this platform. Nowhere does he
cite Aristotle’s metaphysics, Adam
Smith’s economics, John Locke’s
political philosophy, David Hume, Thomas Jefferson, or
James Madison.

“Combat Liberalism” is
only three pages long. In it, Mao defines liberalism, or ziyouzhuyi, which translates literally
as “freedom-ism” or “liberty-ism.” The key word in the
phrase is ziyou, freedom. Viewers of CNN may
recall that “oppose
liberalism” was the party's rallying slogan when it sent troops and
tanks against unarmed
students into Tiananmen Square against unarmed students in June 1989.

What does Mao say in
“Combat Liberalism?” He writes
that “we advocate an active ideological struggle, because it
is the weapon for achieving
solidarity within the Party.” In contrast, “liberalism negates ideological struggle.”
Mao is especially eager to warn his comrades that
liberalism has no place
in the communist movement.

The other two
essays require more study. “On Practice”
is the more important of the two
pieces. It is subtitled
“On the Relation between Knowledge and Practice-Between Knowing
and Doing.”Mao wrote
it to educate party
members on the Marxist conception of “truth.”

The core principle is that knowledge becomes verified only in the process of
social practice. There is
no such thing as purely abstract or theoretical
knowledge. But practice is not a matter
of personal choice. It
isrestricted to
class struggle. As Mao says, Marxist
philosophy, that is, dialectical materialism, has two characteristics: “one is its class nature, its open declaration that dialectical
materialism is in the service of
the proletariat; the other is ... its emphasis on practice as the foundation
of theory
which
in turn serves practice.”

To continue: “perceptual knowledge turns into logical knowledge through the
complex and regularly recurrent practices of production and class struggle of
man in society.” Mao attributes the genius
of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin to their personal
participation in class struggle. Marxism-Leninism is true, says Mao, because it was verified in the subsequent
revolutionary class struggle. The communists, in other
words, won.

If all this sounds
confusing to you, it should; it is. Let’s try to translate it into
English. Mao, speaking for
the Chinese Communist Parry,
vanguard of the proletariat and its leading element, proclaims that logic and evidence
are to be used in the
service of the proletariat,
not the bourgeoisie. This
formulation requires selective use of logic and evidence (in the normal sense
of the words) by party members. Whenever
the revolution and class struggle are served by logic and
evidence, then by all means
use them. If,
however, the opponents of revolution and
class struggle use logic and evidence
in the service of the bourgeoisie, indeed
the exact same logic and evidence used by communists to advance class
struggle, then party
members must reject that specific logic and
evidence. In Mao-think,
logic and evidence are not really logic and
evidence under circumstances that favor the bourgeoisie.

To repeat, logic and
evidence are relative to time and place-the service of
the proletariat as determined by the Communist
Party.

Let's try to
explain this one more
time. Truth is when Mao finds
it useful to use logic and evidence to
advance class struggle,
the revolution, and secure power for the Communist Party. As
conditions change during these
struggles, so too does truth. Today's truth becomes tomorrow's lie
if the opponents of class struggle
seize on the same logic and evidence.

It may seem to Western minds
that Mao is
just changing his mind, saying one thing
today and another tomorrow. But
such perception misses the
central point of
Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. Truth
is defined in terms of class struggle,
revolution, and advancing socialism, whatever may be in vogue at the
time. Each time Mao
changed his mind on how
to serve best the proletariat, truth changed.

Are you
bewildered? Does this sound nonsensical
to you? It should.
Marxism
is a
contradiction. It is a framework for reason
that
is inherently illogical most of
the time, nonlogical at other times, and
occasionally logical (in Aristotelian terms) at other times. It is logical in the Western dictionary definition of "logic" when being logical serves
the proletariat-as Mao thinks appropriate.
It is also
a recipe for
saying and doing whatever you want, if
you have the power to execute your commands or your opponents. Marxism-Maoism
legitimizes any
and every word or deed, as
long as you stay in charge.

At this point, let's stop
talking about the proletariat and simply talk
about the Communist Party. During Mao's life,
the “great helmsman”and the party
were one. When he spoke, the
party spoke. When he
issued orders, the party acted. What happened
to the proletariat,
you may ask? Were
its interests well
served? In the view
of Mao and most
communists, the proletariat lacked sufficient class consciousness of what it meant to be the
proletariat. Therefore, the Communist
Party had the right
to run everything. This sounds
like a
justification
for the exercise of unbridled power.

Cutting through
the Marxist double
talk, Mao says basically this: When
it serves your
interest, make promises. When it serves your interest, break
promises. Breaking promises is not lying-at least not in a Marxist vision. Breaking promises
is simply the
application of logic
and evidence that
leads to
a new truth, one applicable
to the current conditions of class struggle.

As to the written and spoken words that define
the content of those promises, their meaning changes as circumstances warrant.
The meaning
depends on the
nature of the
class struggle
at any moment
in time. Accordingly, Chinese dictionaries are
revised whenever it is necessary to
include new ideological
formulations or change
old ones. China's
constitution,
in this spirit, hadundergone five comprehensive revisions between 1949 and 1996, reflecting the shifting currents
of political definitions.

It's a very small stretch
to go from constantly changing
conditions of class struggle, which define the truthful use of logic and
evidence, to lying. It really is
all right to lie in the service
of the
proletariat, if that
is how the party
believes class struggle
can be advanced.

Now, replace “Chairman Mao” with “President Obama” and
“Communist Party of China” with “Democrat Party.” All of a sudden it becomes
clear how presidential candidate Obama can say different, indeed contradictory,
things at different times with no hesitation and a straight face. He can
misstate facts. He can rewrite history. He can utter economic nonsense. His
objective is to win, or in Mao’s terms, advance the cause of the proletariat
(Democrats) and defeat the selfish (the 1%) bourgeoisie (Republicans). Logic
and evidence are not universal means of getting at the truth. Rather, for Obama, they are tools to be used
in the service of Democrats. It’s as
simple as that.

President Obama’s eloquent doubletalk bewilders and frustrates
his conservative critics and political opponents, who repeatedly tell the
American people that Obama has been inconsistent, has failed to carry out his
promises, and so forth. Obama's modus operandi is not to win the argument, but to win a second term by getting enough
American to vote for him. End of story.